Appellate Division

CPLR R. 4518(c) Applied to Chiro Reports

CPLR R. 4518 Business records
(c) Other records. All records, writings and other things referred to in sections 2306 and 2307 are admissible in evidence under this rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained, provided they bear a certification or authentication by the head of the hospital, laboratory, department or bureau of a municipal corporation or of the state, or by an employee delegated for that purpose or by a qualified physician. Where a hospital record is in the custody of a warehouse, or “warehouseman” as that term is defined by paragraph (h) of subdivision one of section 7-102 of the uniform commercial code, pursuant to a plan approved in writing by the state commissioner of health, admissibility under this subdivision may be established by a certification made by the manager of the warehouse that sets forth (i) the authority by which the record is held, including but not limited to a court order, order of the commissioner, or order or resolution of the governing body or official of the hospital, and (ii) that the record has been in the exclusive custody of such warehouse or warehousemen since its receipt from the hospital or, if another has had access to it, the name and address of such person and the date on which and the circumstances under which such access was had. Any warehouseman providing a certification as required by this subdivision shall have no liability for acts or omissions relating thereto, except for intentional misconduct, and the warehouseman is authorized to assess and collect a reasonable charge for providing the certification described by this subdivision.

Clickety.

CPLR R: 3212 Multiple Summary Judgment Motions Allowed in Some Circumstances

CPLR R. 3212

North Fork Preserve, Inc. v Kaplan, 2009 NY Slip Op 09006 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

After extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims in the amended complaint. Although the defendants had made two previous motions for summary judgment, the third motion did not violate the general proscription against successive motions for summary judgment since it was based on deposition testimony and numerous documents that had been elicited after the prior motions were denied (see Auffermann v Distl, 56 AD3d 502; Kobre v United Jewish Appeal-Fedn. of Jewish Philanthropies of N.Y., Inc., 32 AD3d 218; Staib v City of New York, 289 AD2d 560).

***

Finally, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, since the alleged new evidence was improperly submitted for the first time in the plaintiffs' reply papers (see GJF Constr. Corp. v Cosmopolitan Decorating Co. Inc., 35 AD3d 535; Adler v Suffolk County Water Auth., 306 AD2d 229). In any event, the plaintiffs did not offer a reasonable justification for their failure to present this evidence on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e]; Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 594).

Alexandru v Pappas, 2009 NY Slip Op 08978 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

However, to the extent that the plaintiff's motion sought to compel the defendants to specifically perform their obligations under the stipulations of settlement, which is the ultimate relief sought in the action, that branch of the motion was, in effect, for summary judgment, which procedurally could not be granted, as issue had yet to be joined (see CPLR 3212[a]). Thus, that branch of the motion was properly denied.

Compare Alexandru with Roche v Claverack Coop. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 01390 (App. Div., 3d, 2009) (Treating defendant's SJ motion as if issue had been joined).

Oral Decision, Not Reduced to Writing, Does Not Get Res Judicata Effect (last case)

Res Judicata
Collateral Estoppel
Law of the Case

Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp. v Carter, 2009 NY Slip Op 09018 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In the underlying action, judgment was entered against the plaintiff upon its default in answering or appearing. The plaintiff obtained an order vacating the default judgment, which was ultimately reversed by this Court (see Dave Sandel, Inc. v Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp., 35 AD3d 790). Generally, a party who has lost a case as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action for damages against the party who adduced the false evidence, and the plaintiff's remedy lies exclusively in moving to vacate the default judgment (see North Shore Envtl. Solutions, Inc. v Glass, 17 AD3d 427; Retina Assoc. of Long Is. v Rosberger, 299 AD2d 533; New York City Tr. Auth. v Morris J. Eisen, P.C., 276 AD2d 78, 87; Yalkowsky v Century Apts. Assoc., 215 AD2d 214, 215). Under an exception to that rule, a separate lawsuit may be brought where the [*2]alleged perjury or fraud in the underlying action was "merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme" (Newin Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217) which was "greater in scope than the issues determined in the prior proceeding" (Retina Assoc. of Long Is. v Rosberger, 299 AD2d at 533 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The plaintiff here, in its amended verified complaint and supplemental affidavits, has sufficiently alleged a larger fraudulent scheme to fit within the exception to the rule against collateral attack (see New York City Tr. Auth. v Morris J. Eisen, P.C., 276 AD2d at 80, 87-88; cf. North Shore Envtl. Solutions, Inc. v Glass, 17 AD3d at 428).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the first cause of action in the amended verified complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata since the Judiciary Law cause of action did not arise out of the factual transaction which was the subject matter of that action (see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372; Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d at 1011; Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607, 609; Triboro Fastener & Chem. Prods. Corp. v Lee, 236 AD2d 603, 603-604). Nor is the first cause of action precluded by principles of collateral estoppel in that the claim was not litigated in the underlying action and much of the evidence upon which the plaintiff relies was discovered subsequent to entry of the default judgment in the underlying action (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456-457; Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d at 537; Chambers v City of New York, 309 AD2d 81, 85).

Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 2009 NY Slip Op 08792, (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

On a prior appeal in this action, this Court affirmed, inter alia, the Supreme Court's determination to award an attorney's fee to the plaintiffs (see Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 38 AD3d 619). Thus, the doctrine of the law of the case (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502) precludes consideration of whether the plaintiffs were properly awarded an attorney's fee (see Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, affd 10 NY3d 846; Toyos v City of New York, 54 AD3d 628; Combier v Anderson, 34 AD3d 333).

As a general rule, we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, the defendants appealed from an order of the Supreme Court dated September 7, 2007, which, inter alia, denied their motion to cancel the hearing on the issue of the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded. That appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 18, 2008, for failure to prosecute. We decline to exercise our discretion to determine the merits of that appeal on the instant appeal from the judgment, as amended (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d [*2]350; Blue Chip Mtge. Corp. v Strumpf, 50 AD3d 936, 937).

Jespersen v Li Sheng Liang, 2009 NY Slip Op 09000 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

As a general rule, a dismissal "with prejudice" signifies that the court intended dismiss the action "on the merits" (Yonkers Contr. v Port Auth. Trans Hudson Corp., 93 NY2d 375, 380). However, an oral decision which has never been reduced to a written order or judgment is not entitled to res judicata effect and thus is ineffective as a bar to subsequent proceedings (see Towne v Asadourian, 277 AD2d 800; Begelman v Begelman, 170 AD2d 562; see also 73 NY Jur 2d, Judgments §§ 354, 436, 437). Moreover, it is clear from the hearing transcript, as well as from the order appealed from, that the Supreme Court did not intend its dismissal of the first action to be on the merits. In addition, while a "duplicate" action is subject to dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), there was no procedural bar to the plaintiff commencing the second action before the first action had been dismissed.

The bold is mine.

The Long Arm of New York

CPLR § 301 Jurisdiction over persons, property or status

CPLR § 302 Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction
(1) transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state

Executive Life Ltd. v Silverman, 2009 NY Slip Op 08994 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The plaintiff, Executive Life Ltd., d/b/a Executive Alliance (hereinafter Executive), a New York-based executive search agency, allegedly contracted with the defendant, a Colorado-based collections attorney, to refer candidates for open paralegal and attorney positions in the defendant's law firm. The agreement between the parties provided that Executive would be entitled to a commission if it referred a person whom the defendant hired, and the person remained employed by the defendant for 60 consecutive days. The defendant was never physically present in New York, and the agreement between the parties was negotiated by telephone and email. Executive faxed the agreement, which provided that it would be governed by New York law, to the defendant, who executed it and returned it by fax. According to the complaint, Executive referred a candidate whom the defendant hired for the paralegal position and that person remained employed by the defendant for at least 60 consecutive days. Nevertheless, the defendant allegedly failed to pay the commission due. Executive commenced this action against the defendant in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 302[a][1]). We affirm.

Under New York's long-arm statute, "a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who . . . transacts any business within the state . . ." (CPLR 302[a]), regardless of whether that nondomiciliary has actually set foot in New York State (see Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467; Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13, 17; Bogal v Finger, 59 AD3d 653). Whether a defendant has transacted business within New York is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and rests on whether the defendant, by some act or acts, has "purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]" (Ehrenfeld v Bin Mahfouz, 9 NY3d 501, 508). "Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the [*2]privileges of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'" (Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d at 380, quoting McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 NY2d 377, 382). The long-arm statute is a "single-act" statute (Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 NY3d 65, 71, cert denied sub nom. Montana Bd. of Invs. v Deutsch Bank Sec., Inc., 549 US 1095; see George Reiner & Co. v Schwartz, 41 NY2d 648, 651-652) and, thus, evidence of even one such transaction is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary defendant, provided that the defendant's activities were purposeful and "there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted" (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d at 467; see Stardust Dance Prods., Ltd. v Cruise Groups, Intl., Inc., 63 AD3d 1262, 1264). "[I]t is the quality of the defendants' New York contacts that is the primary consideration" (Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d at 380).

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Although negotiations may have taken place by telephone, fax, and email, and the defendant allegedly faxed the agreement to Executive's office in New York, the defendant's actions did not amount to a purposeful invocation of the privileges of conducting business in New York. We note that the defendant did not specify that any applicant was to come from New York, and, indeed, the person he hired was already based in Colorado (see Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 AD3d 433, 434; Professional Personnel Mgt. Corp. v Southwest Med. Assoc., 216 AD2d 958; Milliken v Holst, 205 AD2d 508, 509-510; cf. Corporate Campaign v Local 7837, United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 265 AD2d 274, 275-276). The choice of law provision in the agreement, while relevant, is insufficient by itself to confer personal jurisdiction over the defendant in New York under CPLR 302(a)(1) (see Goulds Pumps v Mazander Engineered Equip. Co., 217 AD2d 960, 961; Peter Lisec Glastechnische Industrie GmbH v Lenhardt Maschinenbau GmbH, 173 AD2d 70, 72).

CPLR R. 3216 Must Contain Certain Language & CC Order Can Have the Same Effect as a 90-day Notice

CPLR R. 3216 Want of prosecution

Itskov v Menorah Home & Hosp. for the Aged & Infirm, 2009 NY Slip Op 08999 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Here, the defendant's notice dated November 5, 2007, demanding that the plaintiffs serve and file a note of issue cannot be deemed a notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it failed to notify the plaintiffs that they were "to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand" (CPLR 3216[b][3] [emphasis added]; cf. Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233, 238). Since no proper notice was received by the plaintiffs prior to the defendant's motion, the Supreme Court was not authorized to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Rose v Aziz, 60 AD3d at 926; Harrison v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 43 AD3d at 997; Schuering v Stella, 243 AD2d at 624).

Passet v Menorah Nursing Home, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 09009 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written notice demanding that the plaintiff resume prosecution of the action and serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand, and also stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action (see Rose v Aziz, 60 AD3d 925, 926). Since CPLR 3216 is a legislative creation and not part of a court's inherent power (see Cohn v Borchard Affiliations, 25 NY2d 237, 248), the failure to serve a written notice that conforms to the provisions of CPLR 3216 is the failure of a condition precedent to dismissal of the action (see Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo, 69 NY2d 901, 902; Rose v Aziz, 60 AD3d at 926; Harrison v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 43 AD3d 996, 997; Schuering v Stella, 243 AD2d 623, 624).

Here, the defendants' notice demanding that the plaintiff serve and file a note of issue cannot be deemed a notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it failed to notify the plaintiff that she was "to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand" (CPLR 3216[b][3] [emphasis added]; cf. Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233, 238). Since no proper notice was received by the plaintiff prior to the defendants' motion, the Supreme Court was not authorized to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Rose v Aziz, 60 AD3d at 926; Harrison v Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 43 AD3d at 997; Schuering v Stella, 243 AD2d at 624).

Shcherbina v Queens Nassau Nursing Home, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 07615 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In a compliance conference order dated April 1, 2003, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue on or before July 1, 2003, and warned that the action would be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to comply. Counsel for the plaintiff signed the order. This order had the same effect as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Felix v County of Nassau, 52 AD3d 653, 653; Anjum v Karagoz, 48 AD3d 605, 605; Hoffman v Kessler, 28 AD3d 718). The plaintiff failed to comply with this order either by filing a timely note of issue or by moving to extend the period for doing so, and the action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Felix v County of Nassau, 52 AD3d 653, 653-654; Anjum v Karagoz, 48 AD3d 605, 605). Since the plaintiff waited three years to move to vacate the dismissal of the action, the motion was untimely and should have been denied (see Vinikour v Jamaica Hosp., 2 AD3d 518, 519).

The bold is mine.

Compare the last two decisions with A.M. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 28487 (App. Term, 2nd, 2008)

Wow, I just realized that these are all nursing home cases. Weird.

CPLR R. 5015 Don’t Try This at Home

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order
(a) On motion
(1) excusable default…
(2) newly-discovered evidence…
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
(4) lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order
(5) reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based

Campbell-Jarvis v Alves, 2009 NY Slip Op 08986 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In order to vacate her default in opposing the defendant's prior motion to dismiss, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious opposition to the motion (see Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Dollar Rent A Car, 25 AD3d 534; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545; Amato v Fast Repair, Inc., 15 AD3d 429, 430; Costanza v Gold, 12 AD3d 551, 552). Although the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion (see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569; Grutman v Southgate At Bar Harbor Home Owners' Assn., 207 AD2d 526, 527), and the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), "a pattern of willful default and neglect" should not be excused (Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d at 569 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645, 645-646; Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414, 417), and the claim of law office failure should be supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default or defaults at issue (Henry v Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476, 479; see Gironda v Katzen, 19 AD3d 644, 645). In this case, the plaintiff's attorney's conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure did not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Forward Door of N.Y., Inc. v Forlader, 41 AD3d 535; Piton v Cribb, 38 AD3d 741; Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Holder, 31 AD3d 636). In addition, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to vacate an order which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action upon her default in opposing the motion.

Now, compare that with

Lamar v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 08974 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

While the City's generalized assertion of law office failure as the excuse for its delay is not particularly compelling, it constitutes "good cause" for the delay (see Spira v New York City Tr. Auth., 49 AD3d 478 [2008]). No prejudice to plaintiff has been shown (see Cirillo v Macy's, Inc., 61 AD3d 538, 540 [2009]), and New York's public policy strongly favors litigating matters on the merits (see Silverio v City of New York, 266 AD2d 129 [1999]). An affidavit of merit is not required where no default order or judgment has been entered (see Cirillo, supra).

Performance Constr. Corp. v Huntington Bldg., LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 09012 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Corcoran Marble & Monument Co., Inc. (hereinafter Corcoran), and in granting Corcoran's cross motion for leave to serve a late answer (see CPLR 3012[d], 5015[a][1]). Considering the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the relatively short 11-day delay in Corcoran's service of an answer, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently excused Corcoran's de minimis delay in answering the complaint (see Klughaupt v Hi-Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 AD3d 545, 546; Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 29 AD3d 673, 674; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp., 19 AD3d 687, 688). Furthermore, the record reveals that Corcoran was actively engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiff's attorney, and that the plaintiff's attorney never mentioned that he would be moving for leave to enter a default judgment (see Armstrong Trading, Ltd. v MBM Enters., 29 AD3d 835, 836; Scarlett v McCarthy, 2 AD3d 623; Lehrman v Lake Katonah Club, 295 AD2d 322). [*2]

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Tritec Building Co. (hereinafter Tritec). The record reveals that Tritec and the plaintiff entered into a stipulation extending Tritec's time to answer "to and until March 3, 2008." Accordingly, Tritec's service of an answer was timely since the answer was served on March 3, 2008 (see CPLR 320[a]).

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 2221(e) Motion to Renew

CPLR R. 2221
(e) Motion for Leave to Renew

Abayev v Zia, 2009 NY Slip Op 08565 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221[e][2]) and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; Dinten-Quiros v Brown, 49 AD3d 588; Madison v Tahir, 45 AD3d 744). "Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion" (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to renew his opposition to the motion of the defendant Karen Mazuer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The plaintiff submitted additional evidence and offered a reasonable justification for his failure to submit that additional evidence at the time of his opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221[e]). However, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination granting the motion for summary judgment.

Sajid v Glenwood Holding, LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 09016 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

We affirm the denial of renewal on the ground that the defendants failed to offer a reasonable justification for failing to present the affidavit of the corporate defendants' principal in their opposition to the plaintiffs' original motion (see CPLR 2221[e]; Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669, 670; Reshevsky v United Water N.Y., Inc., 46 AD3d 532, 533; St. Claire v Gaskin, 295 AD2d at 337).

The bold is mine.

What’s New In 3212? It’s (f)

Sometimes in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment, you need information. You need discovery.That's where CPLR R. 3212(f) comes in. It allows you to oppose the motion, by arguing that you cannot oppose without more information and, you can only get that information from the other party. The absence of discovery will not always be sufficient. There are many cases where the non-moving party needs no additional information to oppose the motion. "But we're entitled to discovery," or similar arguments, will not suffice, absent a articulable need. And be wary of invoking (f) where you, the non-moving party, filed a note of issue. CPLR R. 3211 has a similar provision.

On its face, this is simple stuff. But as usual, the devil is in the details. In the past few months I've seen a bunch of these decisions. I might not have noticed it before. It may just be the cool thing to do–in vogue at the moment.

CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment
(f) Facts unavailable to opposing party

Long Is. Power Auth. v Anderson, 2009 NY Slip Op 07989 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Under the circumstances of this case, however, which include the total absence of any pretrial discovery, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was premature (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 506; Hall Enters., Inc. v Liberty Mgt. & Constr., Ltd., 37 AD3d 658; see also Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Town of Watertown, 6 NY3d 744).

McCoy v Zaman, 2009 NY Slip Op 07990 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Nieves v JHH Transp., LLC, 40 AD3d 1060; Velazquez v Denton Limo, Inc., 7 AD3d 787, 788; Barberena v Budd Enters., 299 AD2d 305, 306).

In opposition to the prima facie demonstration by the plaintiff of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nieves v JHH Transp., LLC, 40 AD3d at 1060; Rainford v Sung S. Han, 18 AD3d 638, 639). The defendant's affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion raised only feigned issues of fact intended solely to avoid the consequences of his prior admission (see Nieves v JHH Transp., LLC, 40 AD3d at 1060).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, summary judgment was not premature due to the alleged incompleteness of discovery (see Rivas v 525 Bldg Co., 293 AD2d 733, 735). There was no indication that any outstanding discovery might reveal information exclusively within the plaintiff's knowledge upon which his motion could successfully be opposed (see Household Bank [SB] N.A. v Mitchell, 12 AD3d 568, 568-569; Rivas v 525 Bldg Co., 293 AD2d at 735).

Doe v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 08580 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly rejected the plaintiff's contention that facts essential to justify opposition to that branch of the MTA/LIRR's motion may exist upon further discovery (see CPLR 3212 [f]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery. The plaintiff failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence (see Panasuk v Viola Park Realty, LLC, 41 AD3d 804, 805; Ruttura & Sons Constr. Co. v Petrocelli Constr., 257 AD2d 614, 615). Moreover, the plaintiff filed a note of issue, failed to demand additional discovery within 20 days of the depositions as provided in the parties' discovery stipulation, and did not make any application to compel discovery until she cross-moved in opposition to the MTA/LIRR's motion. In such an instance, a claim of incomplete [*3]discovery will not defeat a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see Guarino v Mohawk Containers Co., 59 NY2d 753; Matuszak v B.R.K. Brands, Inc., 23 AD3d 628).

Menezes v Khan, 2009 NY Slip Op 07991 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants did not address the plaintiff's claim, clearly set forth in his bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident (see Negassi v Royle, 65 AD3d 1311; Alvarez v Dematas, 65 AD3d 598; Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d 979, 980; Smith v Quicci, 62 AD3d 858, 859). The plaintiff alleged in his bill of particulars that he missed three months of work as a result of the accident, and the defendants' neurologist and orthopedist were both advised of this allegation. However, neither of these experts, who did not examine the plaintiff until more than three years after the accident, related his findings to the 90/180 day category of serious injury. The affirmed medical reports of the defendants' radiologist also failed to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the accident. Although the radiologist opined that the plaintiff had not suffered any traumatic injury to his cervical and lumbar spines, her reports did not address any of the other injuries alleged in the plaintiff's bill of particulars, including bilateral shoulder and knee injuries (see Takaroff v A.M. USA, Inc., 63 AD3d 1142, 1143; Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d at 980; Delayhaye v Caledonia Limo & Car Serv., Inc., 61 AD3d 814, 815; Carr v KMO Transp., Inc., 58 AD3d 783, 784-785; Jensen v Nicmanda Trucking, Inc., 47 AD3d 769, 770). [*2]

Since the defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Takaroff v A.M. USA, Inc., 63 AD3d at 1144; Rahman v Sarpaz, 62 AD3d at 980).

And, make sure to attach all the pleadings..

Fishkin v Feinstein, 2009 NY Slip Op 08782 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court properly denied Feinstein's motion for summary judgment. As an initial matter, the plaintiff correctly contends that Feinstein was not entitled to summary judgment since the papers she submitted in support of her motion failed to include copies of all of the pleadings filed in the action, as required by CPLR 3212(b) (see Wider v Heller, 24 AD3d 433; Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v Chumpitaz, 5 AD3d 663; Deer Park Assoc. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443; Lawlor v County of Nassau,166 AD2d 692).

The bold is mine.

CPLR § 5225(a)(b)

CPLR § 5225 Payment or delivery of property of judgment debtor
(a) Property in the possession of judgment debtor
(b) Property not in the possession of judgment debtor

Buckeye Retirement Co., LLC, Ltd. v Quattrocchi, 2009 NY Slip Op 08576 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

CPLR 5225(a) requires that notice of a motion to compel the turn over of personal property "shall be served on the judgment debtor in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested" (CPLR 5225[a]). The plaintiff's affidavit of service revealed that the judgment debtor was served by regular mail, rather than by a method set forth in CPLR 5225(a). The failure to properly serve notice upon the defendant of the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 5225(a) to compel the defendant to turn over to the Sheriff certain personal property in his possession deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion (see Zaidi v New York Bldg. Contrs., Ltd., 61 AD3d 747, 748; Daulat v Helms Bros., Inc., 32 AD3d 410, 411; Golden v Golden, 128 AD2d 672, 673; see also Banco Popular N. Am. v Philian Designs LLC, 48 AD3d 368, 369; Oil City Petroleum Co. v Fabac Realty Corp., 70 AD2d 859, affd on other grounds 50 NY2d 853). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 5225(a).

Matter of Signature Bank v HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2009 NY Slip Op 08626 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Faced with the judgment debtor's continuous default in making payments to satisfy the money judgment, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) against the judgment debtor, her bank, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (hereinafter HSBC), and the judgment debtor's daughters, who were named on the subject joint bank accounts, inter alia, to direct HSBC to turn over the funds of the joint bank accounts to the petitioner. Both of the judgment debtor's daughters defaulted in answering the petition. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the petition which was to direct HSBC to turn over the funds of those bank accounts to the petitioner. We affirm.

CPLR 5225(b) provides for an expedited special proceeding by a judgment creditor to recover "money or other personal property" belonging to a judgment debtor "against a person in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest" in order to satisfy a judgment (Starbare II Partners v Sloan, 216 AD2d 238, 239). The judgment creditor is required to serve the petition upon the judgment debtor in the same manner as a summons in an action or [*2]by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested (see CPLR 5225[b]). Once a court has personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor and bank, it can order the turn over of "money or other personal property," even property located out of the state (see Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intl. Fin. Co. B.V., 41 AD3d 25, 31; Miller v Doniger, 28 AD3d 405; Starbare II Partners v Sloan, 216 AD2d at 239).

Even jointly owned assets are vulnerable to levy by a judgment creditor pursuant to CPLR 5225. "Generally, the deposit of funds into a joint account constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to create a joint tenancy" (Matter of Richichi, 38 AD3d 558, 559; see Banking Law § 675[b]; Matter of Dubin, 54 AD3d 947, 949). However, at the same time, "the opening of a joint bank account creates a rebuttable presumption that each named tenant is possessed of the whole of the account so as to make the account vulnerable to levy of a money judgment by the judgment creditor of one of the joint tenants" (Tayar v Tayar, 208 AD2d 609, 610; see Viggiano v Viggiano, 136 AD2d 630, 631; Denton v Grumbach, 2 AD2d 420, 422; Banking Law § 675[b]).

"The presumption created by Banking Law § 675 can be rebutted by providing direct proof that no joint tenancy was intended or substantial circumstantial proof that the joint account had been opened for convenience only'" (Fragetti v Fragetti, 262 AD2d 527, 527, quoting Wacikowski v Wacikowski, 93 AD2d 885, 885; see Matter of Friedman, 104 AD2d 366, 367, affd 64 NY2d 743; Storozynski v Storozynski, 60 AD3d 754). If the presumption is rebutted, the judgment creditor's levy on the jointly owned bank account is effective only up to the actual interest of the judgment debtor in the account (see Viggiano v Viggiano, 136 AD2d at 631).

The Supreme Court properly directed HSBC to turn over the entirety of the subject joint bank accounts to the petitioner (see LR Credit 10, LLC v Welsh, 17 Misc 3d 1129[A]; Rappaport, Steele & Co., P.C. v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 13 Misc 3d 1203[A]; Velocity Invs., LLC/Citibank v Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan, 12 Misc 3d 1184[A]; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Astoria Fed., 189 Misc 2d 475, 477). It is undisputed that neither of the judgment debtor's daughters appeared or answered the proceedings, or in any manner challenged the petition's allegations to claim any portion of the joint bank accounts (see Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730; McClelland v Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 NY 347, 351; Otto v Otto, 150 AD2d 57, 65; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Astoria Fed., 189 Misc 2d at 476). The judgment debtor's mere conclusory assertions are patently insufficient to rebut her ownership of the funds in the bank accounts for purposes of the turnover proceedings (see Tayar v Tayar, 208 AD2d at 610). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner was entitled to the turnover of the funds contained in the two joint bank accounts.

To the extent the judgment debtor raises an issue concerning that branch of the petition which was to direct HSBC to turn over the contents of a safe deposit box in the name of the judgment debtor, that issue remains pending and undecided, and, therefore, is not properly before this Court (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543).

The bold is mine.

These Are Not The Droids You’re Looking For (Discovery: CPLR § 3126)

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

Emmitt v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 07331 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

A party that disobeys court-ordered disclosure is subject to preclusion of relevant portions of its evidence (CPLR 3126). The nature of the sanction lies generally within the broad discretion of the court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise thereof (Gross v Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., 201 AD2d 390 [1994]). In its answer, defendant raised as an affirmative defense that any and all hazards, defects and dangers were of such an open, obvious and apparent nature that they were or should have been known to plaintiff, thus rendering her injuries attributable to her own culpable conduct. There is no reason to bar defendant from pursuing that defense. However, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to preclude defendant from offering evidence as to the Con Edison permits. We modify only to clarify that it will be conclusively presumed at trial that defendant created or had notice of the trench involved in the accident. This relief will ameliorate the prejudice plaintiff has suffered as a result of defendant’s failure to timely disclose the Con Ed permits. Defendant’s ability to [*2]defend the suit by attributing the accident to plaintiff’s own lack of due care is not impaired.

Minaya v Duane Reade Intl., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06767 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

In sanctioning defendant for failing to preserve critical evidence, the motion court appropriately exercised its “broad discretion to provide . . . relief to the party deprived of the lost evidence” (Ortega v City of New York, 9 NY3d 69, 76 [2007]). Defendant failed to preserve a video recording that may have shown the stairway before and during plaintiff’s accident. The unavailability to plaintiff of the video recording may have impaired his ability to establish that defendant possessed the requisite notice of a defective condition on the stairs. Under these circumstances, however, the extreme sanction of preclusion is not warranted “to restore balance to the matter” (Baldwin v Gerard Ave., LLC, 58 AD3d 484 [2009]). Rather, an adverse inference is sufficient to prevent defendant from using the absence of the videotape to its own advantage (Tomasello v 64 Franklin, Inc., 45 AD3d 1287 [2007]).

Panagiotou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 07811 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The plaintiffs failed to serve a responsive bill of particulars within the 30-day time limit set in the conditional order of preclusion entered February 25, 2008. The order, therefore, became absolute (see Gilmore v Garvey, 31 AD3d 381; Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d 750, 751). To avoid the adverse impact of the conditional order of preclusion, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply and a meritorious cause of action (see State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp., 43 AD3d 907, 908; Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d at 751). The plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. Since the order of preclusion prevents the plaintiffs from establishing a prima facie case, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Calder v Cofta, 49 AD3d 484; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp., 43 AD3d at 908).

Bender, Jenson & Silverstein, LLP v Walter, 2009 NY Slip Op 08572 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Since the defendant failed to establish that she made any effort to comply with the plaintiff’s repeated discovery requests, the Supreme Court properly considered her lack of cooperation to be willful and contumacious, and properly conditionally granted the plaintiff’s motion to preclude her from introducing the requested documents in evidence (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118; D’Aloisi v City of New York, 7 AD3d 750; Brooks v City of New York, 6 AD3d 565; Donovan v City of New York, 239 AD2d 461; cf. Scardino v Town of Babylon, 248 AD2d 371).

In light of the defendant’s noncompliance with discovery, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion to quash certain subpoenas which had been served on nonparty witnesses, on the basis that the information sought was otherwise unobtainable (see Hamilton v Touseull, 48 AD3d 520; Matter of Validation Review Assoc. [Berkuny Schimel], 237 AD2d 614; cf. People v Marin, 86 AD2d 40).

The bold is mine.